Oh for F#ck's Sake!

At the Cogblog we give you Disney, donuts, and derision for all of your family internets needs.

The cause of my cursing -- as if I need one -- is the failure of the Jobs bill, which includes an unemployment compensation extension and a continuation of COBRA subsidies, to pass the Senate, losing by a vote of 45-52.  Not a single Republican voted for the bill.  More gallingly, a slew of Democrats voted against the bill due to concerns about deficit spending.  Just a little clue for our Democratic brethren -- no voter anywhere has ever cast a vote on the deficit.  But people without jobs -- sometimes they get angry and vote against incumbents -- or they sit on their hands and don't vote at all.  In addition to the usual suspects -- Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Evan "Fuckstick" Bayh (Dickless and Brainless - Ind.), Joe Lieberman -- Blanche Lincoln bravely sat out the vote -- still basking in the afterglow no doubt -- we also lost the votes of progressive god Russ Feingold, extraordinarily inconsequential plutocrat Herb Kohl (D. No one knows), Jim Webb, Bill Nelson, Mark Begich, Mark Pryor, Claire McCaskill, and Robert Menendez.  Robert Menendez?!  Really.  WTF!

This is bringing out my inner Jane Hamsher.  Don't these idiots understand that there's a recession going on out there?  Instead, they're going to insist on partying like it's 1937. 

Comments

[Brenda]

I'll be making a call to my senator from NJ tomorrow.

[Davis X. Machina]

It won't cost a one of them their seat -- it won't even cost them a vote, it won't even cost them a vote from many of the people directly affected.

People love stories. People will choose a good, familiar story, well told, and a crust of bread, over a banquet and a strange new world every time.

Feingold's got his own private story-world going, but it's the same mechanism.

That’s the impulse that makes nationalism work, put the ancien in the ancien regime, that keeps a Mugabe in power, that is responsible for there still being any GOP at all.

You need a level of immiseration we haven't even approached yet -- 1933 US bad, 1789 France bad, 1905 Russia bad -- before these people pay any price.

[litbrit]

Oh hell.

Fucking Bill Nelson.

And he's the "leftier" Florida senator. Bleargh.

(Pardon my language, by the way. I've been quite angry lately.)

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Deb: Nelson -- and Begich -- I can forgive more than some of the others. Both are relatively conservative, and both come from states where the Republican Party is tearing itself apart in a Teabagger-Organization split, with Crist already out of the party, and the Miller candidacy becoming important in Alaska. Both teabaggers are running on the deficit (and sadly a lot of people are voting on the deficit this year) and by voting against this they may avoid the two grpoups coming together against 'budget-busting' Democrats and also signal that it is 'safe' for a 'budget-hawk' to vite Democratic. (Clinton did this too much, and they may be following him.)

Of the others, again Jim Webb turns up on the 'wrong side.' There's a case of getting someone 'better than George Allen' but also someone who has voted many times the wrong way for someone so supported by Progressives in 2006. McCaskill's vote might be similar to the ones above, though Murray herself apparently didn't vote no. Nothing Feingold surprises me -- there seems to be a rule that Wisconsin must have one sane Senator and one eccentric, whether as vile as McCarthy, as Progressive as Bob LaFollette, or as weird as Proxmire and Feingold. But kohl's vote did surprise me because I find him a little more reliably progressive on a lot of matters than his reputation is.

Anyway, my guess is that now that these Democrats have 'registered their protest against deficits' that they will have cover to vote for a similar bill as soon as it is brought up, maybe by the end of August. Certainly early next year -- which is too long to wait, but we really stand a chance of breaking the back of the Republican Party for a few years and being free to move wherever we want to -- if we do as well as I expect in the coming elections.

(I hate to argue this way, because it seemed like the last elections would accomplish what i wanted, but what killed us was Republican party discipline and filibusters -- and if the 'fight obama everywhere' club loses as badly as i expect, I think there'l be a return to 'moderate Republicanism' from some Senators.)

[Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle]

Prup:
Feingold might be eccentric, but he is facing election this year, and my guess is he would have been there had we needed his vote. So call me a kiss-ass but I think this was a gimmie.

[Crissa]

We should plaster these guys - and their Republican counterparts - with the question: Did you vote for jobs? In this case, they did not. Did they vote to protect the future from things a bit more deadly than a deficit? No?

We need to make these guys pay for their actual actions.

[low-tech cyclist]

Oh, they'll pay. People don't really vote on the deficit, even when they think they do. They'll vote on whether they're doing well or not. If the Dems put people back to work, 2012 will be a cinch. If not, then a bunch of Dems that squeak through this November will find themselves out on their asses.

[low-tech cyclist]

But I don't want them to pay. I want them to vote to put people back to work.

Miserable fucknuggets.

[oddjob]

They'll vote on whether they're doing well or not. If the Dems put people back to work, 2012 will be a cinch. If not, then a bunch of Dems that squeak through this November will find themselves out on their asses.

Precisely.

[Sir Charles]

Davis,

I don't think you're correct here -- what happens in these circumstances is that people become deomoralized and don't vote. And then you end up with elections like 1994 where the Democratic vote doesn't bother to show up. One of the reasons I often get so mad at leftier than thou bloggers is that I think they create that kind of atmosphere at times. But in this example it really is the corporatist Dems who are poisoning their own well. What a bunch of dumb asses.

What bugs the shit out of me is that this is not a hard argument to make -- we need to get people through this bad time and we can worry about getting our fiscal house in order once a recovery has firmly taken hold -- that is to say when people are back to work.

Again, any Republican who tries to tie the deficit to Dems should be an easy target. Did they vote for the Bush tax cuts? did they vote for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? did they decide that neither of those wars needed to be funded? Did they vote for Medicare Part D without funding it? Then shut the fuck up!

[litbrit]

What Sir C said. *sigh*

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Just don't want my 'tactical' comments to be taken as an endorsement of the shameful vote. And I hope that at least a few of the 'no votes' would have turned if the Bayhs and Liebermans hadn't already doomed the bill and their votes had been useful. Remember, it is a lot easier to cast a potentially costly vote as part of a majority passing a bill, or even to be the deciding vote in passing a bill, than it is to cast the same vote for a bill that you know will fail anyway. At least if the bill passes, you can hope the results will 'prove you right.'

But voting this way was shameful. There are so many great comments out there that it's hard not to do a 'Blog round-up' on the topic alone, but it's Ezra who may have put it best:

It's hard to say this loudly enough, but it really doesn't make sense to offset stimulus spending, at least in the short term. The point of the money is to get the economy moving faster, to give people cash to spend. This isn't like health-care reform, where you're purchasing something and you should pay for it. When you're trying to expand the economy, you need to use debt to put more money into it than would otherwise be there. If you're just moving a dollar from one purpose to another, you may be using that dollar better, but you're not expanding the total amount of demand in the economy by very much. You're just moving it around. It would be like bailing water from a boat, but throwing it into another part of the boat.

There'll come a time when we need to start reducing the deficit. If we can get the economy back into gear, that time might even be soon. But for now, increasing the size of the deficit isn't some nasty side effect of stimulus spending. It is, quite literally, the point of the enterprise.

But Nelson isn't the only one throwing up some odd rationalizations for his vote. Other politicians, as Arthur Delaney explains, have decided that unemployment insurance is just "too much of an allure" for people. It keeps them from going back to work. In theory, you could imagine unemployment benefits so lavish such that that would happen. But in America, benefits are 36 percent of the worker's average previous wage. Imagine living on one-third of your income. That sound "alluring" to you?

Unemployment is at 9.7 percent right now. It's extraordinarily high. And it's extraordinarily high because not enough jobs are being created to absorb all the workers who got laid off during the recession. Killing their unemployment benefits wouldn't magically make more jobs appear. It would just make those people poorer, and because they'd be poorer, they'd have less to spend, and because unemployment is geographically concentrated, that would mean the economy in areas with lots of unemployed workers would tank further and thus it would take longer for it to create jobs.

And a commenter called "boringmike" makes it even simpler:

Some people have trouble grasping this concept, so I'll type slowly: unemployment benefits aren't just about alleviating pain -- they're also about stimulating the economy. The unemployed spend all of that money, get it? That shores up local BUSINESSES. (Yes, Republicans; it helps BUSINESS interests, hooray!)

By stabbing the unemployed in the back, these traitor Dems are kicking the economy down the stairs. Demand is going to drop and we may double dip. Then all of this facetious gum-flapping about the deficit will all be for nothing because tax receipts will plunge. We're headed for a deflationary spiral.

10% unemployment is nothing to mess around with, but we are going to allow our fellow Americans to drown in the name of "fiscal responsibility." In reality nothing could be more irresponsible! And no matter what the ignorant public says now, come November they will be far more angry about unemployment than about the debt, which can always be addressed later.

Again, all I can do is hope that, having established their 'deficit hawk cred' they'll vote right on a suitably fig-leafed equivalent.

[oddjob]

2012 unemployment forecasts are not so good:

[minstrel hussain boy]

i've said before FOOD STAMPS! instant stimulus. shoring up asshole banks and trading houses which haven't changed their behaviors or practices won't get money into the hands of people. it didn't the last time they did bailouts and it won't this time.

a works project along the lines of CCC, and the other roosevelt/keynesian things will do wonders. we need the work done, especially on our rail system. (and i say, fuck high speed and new stuff, fix what's there first) our ports, our bridges, our levees and canals all need massive work. get folks doing that, pay them.

deficit? phooey. what are the nations which hold the paper going to do? i mean really.

[Joe]

I hate to say I told you so, Sir C, but I told you so. The problem with the Democratic Party today, and what will depress voter turnout, is not the Greenwald-Hamsher Left (who may reduce the Democratic turnout in Berkely and Cambridge from 88.9% to 88.8%), but the Bourbon Wing of the Democratic Party which acts like it runs the show when Democrats are in power-- by claiming that it is a virtue to allow suffering and stifle economic growth through government investment in the economy.

[big bad wolf]

i like "Bourbon Wing," joe, but i am not sure it is accurate. it seems more like the middle american babbitt vote.

like prup, i am most surprised by kohl's vote.

[Sir Charles]

Joe,

I stand by my concern that the holier than thou types have a lot more influence than you might think. There is a spillover effect that permeates a lot of activist circles and leads me to having to explain to someone who should know better why electing Paul Hodes to the Senate is important.

But then the asshole wing of the Democratic Party (I refuse to libel one of my favortie beverages) seems to always come through and make it seem like like they might be right.

bbw,

I had brunch with Kohl a number of years ago at a friend's house. He was decidedly the least impressive person at the table.

Still I am surprised at this vote too.

And Feingold has probably hurt his chances of unseating Obama in the 2012 primaries.

[Joe]

Sir C, not to be nitpicky here, but shouldn't Paul Hodes be talking to activists as to why Paul Hodes should be senator ? I understand that a lot of the Netroots types can be petty and thin skinned-- but why isn't Hodes doing house parties and appearances before traditional Democratic constituencies saying why they should support him ? Similarly, why are other Senate Democrats treating activists like like the family's crazy old uncle (I'm looking at you Chuck Schumer and Blanche Lincoln) ? Why is nobody from the Administration posting on Daily Kos or the Huffington Post ? Why isn't somebody touting recess appointments that would be satisfying to the base (e.g. I can't get you card check, AFL-CIO, so I'm going to provide the following recess appointments)?

Part of the reason Greenwald and Hamsher have outsized influence is because nobody seems to have much of a concern about engaging the Democratic Base.

[Sir Charles]

Joe,

I assume Paul Hodes is doing these things, but the guy to whom I was speaking is a doctor and the father of two small children. In other words, he might not being paying attention to whatever campaign activities are going on in NH.

Look, I am not happy with the way that activists are being treated like pains in the ass -- you might recall I had a post about the Schumer comment. And contrary to my general spirit of pragmatism, I am willing to cut Lincon loose at this point. She dissed the wrong people as far as I'm concerned.

I don't know why the White House has not made better use of its grassroots network -- I fear that too many people there --- including the President -- stopped thinking creatively when they got bogged down in the legislative battles of the last 18 months. It's an obvious flaw in the operation.

They did do the NLRB recess appointments -- and great appointments they are -- as a sop for not being able to deliver on card check.

Ultimately I not an apologist for the Conservadems or for the overly cautious thinking among some of top Democratic actors in town. I have tried to critique instances of unrealistic and destructive thinking on the lefty side of the block, but I hope I have also gone after the complacent and conservative who are putatively on our side.

I think the source of confusion about where I stand is largely related to the health care fight and other battles where we need the sixty Senate votes. I have simply noted that there are limits to what the President can do when faced with a disciplined and crazy opposition and when his own party has these kind of mushy creatures in abundance.

[oddjob]

(Because they're scared to get tarred as liberals.)

[oddjob]

(My comment should be tacked onto Joe's. When I posted it I couldn't see Sir C's reply.)

[Joe]

Look, somewhere along the way all Democrats have to find messaging which both excites the Base and is appealing to the moderate/swing voter. Bob Casey does it. Barack Obama did it prior to getting elected. Claire McCaskill and John Tester used to do it as did Jim Webb. If you can't do that, you're not going to get elected. Rahm Emmanuel doesn't seem to understand this basic concept. It shouldn't be that hard because lots of liberal positions are fairly popular. Yet somehow, a big chunk of Dems make a calculation that they have to be actively hostile to the progressive Base. Once you do that, you become a Joe Lieberman or Blanche Lincoln.

[Sir Charles]

Joe,

I agree. See my comments regarding the Jobs bill. This really shouldn't be that hard.

[oddjob]

Rahm Emmanuel doesn't seem to understand this basic concept.

And on healthcare apparently he begged Obama not to go big, to the point that Pelosi was dismissing Emmanuel's idea of how to proceed as "kiddy care". I suspect he must have had a poor opinion of Wellstone, too.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

And let me try and make my position clearer too. I am, philosophically opposed to Clintonian triangulation, Carvillian fleeing from 'liberalism' and the whole DLC shit. I woukd ordinarily be on the side of pushing much harder -- and I still want us to do all the pushing possible.

But I have to keep the whole political picture in mind, not just individual issues. This is a unique time in three ways. Right now even the farthest right Democratic Senator is to the left of the farthest left Republican which has never happened before. Right now, Republican party discipline in Congress is the main stumbling block to most progressive actions.

And, right now, the Republicans are in the process of tearing themselves apart in primaries all around the country, attacking 'RINOs' (like Lindsay Graham, of all people), and nominating a cast of characters unique in their insanity -- and characters who are, where they win -- as some House members may -- likely to be more trouble for the Republican Establishment.

In short, our best strategy is to lay low a little, let the republicans get their targets all lined up -- and then we can fire away, using their craziness as our main argument. Then once we've actually gained seats in the Senate and lost only a few House seats, we can start moving ahead much more rapidly, with no danger of obstructionism. (As I said recently, it may also shake the Maine ladies and Castle loose from McConnell's control and 'bi-partisanship' might be possible again.)

One more point before my usual evening break -- I not only am going to shed no tears at Lincoln's defeat, I'm glad she won the Primary so no one can spin the election into 'a Progressive lost a seat a Blue Dog would have held.